[Februar 1883. BULLETIN BROOKLYN ENTOM. SOC. VOL. V. 79 
the moth, etc.” has been appropriated by mz —— which is simple falsehood. 
Mr. Glover figured the glands, but never wrote a word as to the attract.on 
of said glands to the moth, and I was not on'y the first to suspect th’s 
‘connection, but to prove it by observation and to discuss its bearings.* 
As for Mr. Grote’s utterances anent Paris Green, they are simply ludicrous 
as opposed to a general experience in this country ‘of nearly a decade. 
and while I have nowhere claimed public gratitude as he fasely states, it 
is true that such bas been generously expressed by the farming community 
for my humble efforts in connection with its safe and efficient; use while 
his prejudiced opposition to it has met with derision not only from 
farmers and planters but from every other entomoligst who has had _prac- 
tical dealings with insects. The closing paper of the volume entitled ‘“‘a 
Colony of Butterflies” (which first appeared in the American Naturalist 
for March, 1876) has little of originality about ‘t except the style, since 
both the facts and the theory had been set forth by Dr. A. S. Packard, 
Jr., in 1867** and by Mr. S. H. Scudder in 1874.*** ' 
It is needless to extend this notice. No one can regret more 
than the writer that Mr. Grote should so mar his work or so lay himself 
open to deserved criticism | 
Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 1883. 
* Atlanta (Ga) Constitution, Sept. 20, 1878, and Scientific American, 
Nov. 15, 1878. 
** The Insect Fauna of the Summit of Mount Washington as compared with 
that of Labrador, (Proc. A. A. A. S.; Vol. XVI, p. 156). 
*** Distribution of Insects in New Hampshire (Chapt. XII, Final Report on the 
Geol]. of N. H.) ; 
$$$)» ——_____ 
The printing of the article by Prof’ Riley in the present paper is 
a departure from the rules of the Bulletin, that no personalities shall be 
allowed in its columns. The present departure is made for the following 
reasons. 1st. Mr. Grote’s writings are invariably of such a character that 
no rejoinder can be made without reference to his unsubstantiated personal 
assertions. 2nd. These assertions to which Prof. Riley replies are in an 
ephemeral publication and no other method o’ rep'y is pen to him save 
through the columns of some other publication and just:ce, fair play and 
decency give him the right to a reply somewhere. 
. . F. G Schaupp, 
